Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr Hydar Ally’s letter (‘Education is not in crisis’, SN, September 17). Mr Ally, quite rightly, underscores the importance of education for economic development. I will not get into whether or not Guyana’s educational system is in crisis. I will also not compare the educational systems of the PPP and the PNC. What I will delve into is Mr Ally’s focus on Singapore, and his implicit conclusions as regards Burnham’s leadership. I’m not a politician, and I hold no brief for any party. I simply write to give a less jaundiced perspective.
To be specific, Mr Ally’s argument, as regards Singapore’s meteoric rise, is inadequate. This would have been fine if his aim were to simply underscore the importance of education, but Mr Ally attempts to make a bigger point. Further, his juxtaposition of Singapore’s phenomenal rise, relative to Guyana’s underdevelopment, is simplistic, specious and disingenuous. Mr Ally is not alone. I’ve heard academics and business people ‘beat up’ their own countries while noting the Singaporean success story. Of course education was an important component of Singapore’s prosperity. Of course there are lessons we can learn from Singapore. However, we must be cognizant of the other contributory factors, especially when making international comparisons.
- Singapore’s meteoric rise from third world to first would not have happened if it were not strategically positioned at the tip of the Malacca Strait. Indeed, according to The Economist, “perhaps 40% of world maritime trade passes” through the strait. This is not surprising given the economically powerful Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, and Indian economies that it serves. The quickest sea route from say the Bay of Bengal to Beijing, is through the Malacca Strait. A few years ago, the Chinese proposed the construction of a canal at the Kra Isthmus (Thailand), so as to bypass the Malacca Strait. The Malacca Strait is notorious for pirates, shipwrecks and sediment. Jeffrey Sachs, a respected economist, once made clear that we would not be speaking of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew, if Singapore were a landlocked country. This is not to say that the country would not have done well, but it’s very unlikely that it would have had the phenomenal growth it had over the last five decades.
- Geography aside, it’s important to also look at Singapore’s history. Sir Stamford Raffles, an Englishman, is regarded as the father of modern Singapore. As head of the British East India Company, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post. I heard there’s a white gleaming statue of him in Singapore. Mr Ally must have seen it on his travels. Unlike Guyana and Jamaica, the British had a different purpose for Singapore. It’s smallness, its location, and the fact that it was surrounded by water made it an ideal outpost. It was easier to defend. In WWII the British Naval base was stationed there. Guyana and Jamaica, with all our resources, were simply places for the British to extract resources from. This is not to say that our underdevelopment is simply a result of colonial rule; however, colonial rule has most certainly contributed to it.
- Singapore benefited from China’s Cultural Revolution. Mao was no friend of the capitalist class and as such Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore benefited. Singapore is now a world class financial centre. Like New York, its port contributed immensely to the development of its financial centre.
- I wish to make clear, that the purpose of this letter is not to undermine the visionary leadership of Lee Kuan Yew. Lee studied law at Cambridge. His English ‘grounding’ and appreciation for English law served Singapore well. Indeed, while he ruled with a heavy hand, international capital was assured that property rights, and the rule of law in general, were respected. An English legal system, coupled with English as an official language, certainly helped Singapore to expand rapidly in the world of trade and finance, where English is the lingua franca.
- While geography and history were on his side, Lee had a tough task ahead of him post-British rule. For example, Singapore was expelled from the federation of Malaysia. How was a small, newly independent nation, to survive? Lee literally cried on TV after the expulsion. In retrospect, this accident of history allowed Lee the room to shape the city state in his way.
- Lee, like Burnham, had to deal with the issue of ethnic ‘differences.’ In fact, it was the large Chinese population which contributed to the expulsion of Singapore from the federation. Unlike, Guyana, those who immigrated to Singapore did not arrive unwillingly, or based on false promises. Neither were they systematically pitted against each other. To build social cohesion, Lee’s national housing programme was designed with the specific intent of integrating the different ethnic groups ‒ Chinese, Malay, Indian, etc. To this end, each housing complex had strict ethnic quotas, so as to promote integration and social cohesion. Like Burnham, Lee Kuan Yew established National Service (NS). While the finer details of NS were different for the two countries (only men did NS in Singapore), it was not simply about defending the country from foreign invasion. It was about promoting social cohesion, brotherhood, patriotism, etc. I know of the issues some have had with NS in Guyana, however, the fundamental concept of NS is sound. National Service aside, the creation and singing of national songs is very much evident in Singapore, as it was in Guyana during the ʼ80s and post May, 15, 2015.
- It would be remiss to end without mentioning the negative side of Lee’s leadership. Lee crushed any whisper of political dissent or competition, and as such his party has ruled for decades. Some may argue that this ensured political stability without the “messy distractions” and “disruptions” of leadership challenge and change. I doubt Mr Ally would argue for such “stability.” Lee also censored the press.
- Forbes Burnham, in my opinion, is the closest Guyana has come to a Lee Kuan Yew. Of course Burnham made mistakes (eg, his treatment of international capital and the undermining of the market mechanism), but in judging his legacy of national development, we must not disingenuously ignore his good deeds and the hand he was dealt – domestically, internationally, geographically, and historically.
Yours faithfully,
Samuel Braithwaite
